French security guards won substantial concessions in May 2000 after a strike lasting more than two weeks - the categorisation of their profession as "dangerous", a net monthly bonus of FRF 1,000, and commitments from employers on their safety. Security firms are seeking a contribution from their clients to fund these extra costs. Security guards have been complaining for years about the lack of priority accorded to their safety, and their very low wages. The strike allowed them to take their case to a much wider audience and gain support.
Download article in original language : FR0006169NFR.DOC
French security guards won substantial concessions in May 2000 after a strike lasting more than two weeks - the categorisation of their profession as "dangerous", a net monthly bonus of FRF 1,000, and commitments from employers on their safety. Security firms are seeking a contribution from their clients to fund these extra costs. Security guards have been complaining for years about the lack of priority accorded to their safety, and their very low wages. The strike allowed them to take their case to a much wider audience and gain support.
On 3 May 2000, trade unions called a strike of security guards on the day a former employee of a security firm was buried. He had been killed in an attack in Grenoble on 27 April. Two days later, on 5 May, another security guard was killed and two of his colleagues injured in Nanterre, on the outskirts of Paris. The unions then called for an indefinite strike to begin on 9 May and sought to open negotiations with the employers on safety conditions and pay. Their demands related to: the categorisation of their profession as "dangerous" (with the consequent right to retire at 55, after 20 years as a security guard); the provision of bullet-proof vests; the improvement of their vehicles and the conditions for accessing large departments stores and banks; and pay. Entry-level wages for a security guard are very low, the equivalent to the monthly national minimum wage (SMIC) of around FRF 6,000. Demands on this issue centred on a monthly bonus of FRF 1,500 gross, and a rise in monthly income.
Negotiations with the employers faltered very quickly. The mobile security sector, with 7,800 people mainly employed by two companies (4,300 by Brink's, and 2,300 by Ardial) which hold between 75% and 80% of the market, is experiencing difficulties. The unions' demands posed a threat, according to the employers, to the survival of the companies..
In the face of this deadlock, the Transport Minister, Jean-Claude Gayssot, appointed a high-ranking civil servant to act as a "conciliator". The strike began to disrupt the entire economic chain, with security staff responsible for loading cash-dispensing machines also going on strike. Shopkeepers, with no means of transporting their takings to the bank, feared that they would become the target of attacks. However, the strike appeared popular, as people discovered how undervalued this dangerous profession actually was. One of the employees' assets was the degree of inter-union unity that reigned throughout the dispute. The CFDT, CGT, CGT-FO, CFTC and the National Federation of Long-Distance Drivers (Fédération nationale des chauffeurs routiers, FNCR) were able to set aside their differences and carried out all the negotiations and the coordination of action as a single bloc. It was ultimately through the Ministry that the dispute was put back on the road to negotiations, provoking discord among the employers. While the management of Brink's finally presented proposals acceptable to the unions after requests from the Ministry, their counterparts at Ardial disassociated themselves from them. The employers' organisation, the Union of Valuable Goods Transport Companies (Syndicat des entreprises de logistique des valeurs, SYLOVAL) is largely dominated by Brink's).
After a two-week strike, the unions signed an agreement on 23 May, in which they achieved:
the categorisation of the guards' profession as "dangerous";
increased safety measures (bullet-proof vests, weapons and armour-plating for their vehicles);
a monthly danger bonus of FRF 1,280 gross (or FRF 1,000 net);
a one-off bonus of FRF 2,500 followed by FRF 300 per year for staff loading cash-dispensing machines; and
a pay rise of between 1.5% and 3%.
In the opinion of Ardial management, "the extra costs generated by the agreement and safety measures represent FRF 100 million per year per company." The state has refused to subsidise this extra cost by lowering employers' social security contributions, though it has committed itself to helping companies invest in the purchase of armoured vans (costing FRF 500,000 each), by means of loans at advantageous rates. As for the other expenses, the ball is in the court of the security firms' customers (particularly the banks and large department stores). A meeting was held at the Ministry of Transport on 25 May, ending in failure, with the client companies not being able to commit themselves to implementing the improved safety measures for the security guards. SYLOVAL decided "as soon as possible to impose a unilateral FRF 35 safety contribution for each transaction", in order to compensate for the extra cost resulting from the 23 May agreement.
Some union leaders are concerned about the distortions of competition which might result from this contribution. As an employee representative pointed out (quoted in the La Tribune newspaper on 26 May), small businesses which share the remainder of the security market, and which are not represented within the employers' association, "and whose principal turnover derives from buildings security and surveillance, can offer prices that are already clearly lower for the transport of funds, their secondary activity. This contribution could well turn out to be a new form of competitive advantage for them."
Eurofound recommends citing this publication in the following way.
Eurofound (2000), Victory for striking security guards, article.
